Supporting People Service Review

Service: Anchor Sheltered Housing Schemes. Service Address: (1) St Clements Court, Crown Hill, Weston, Bath. BA1 4BZ. (2) Fitzroy House, 55-59 Great Pulteney Street, Bath, BA2 4DW. Serivice ID Number: (1) 0017 (2) 0018. Service Provider: Anchor Trust, 1st Floor, 408 Strand, London, WC2R 0NE. Date: February 2005. Review Officer: Simon Dicker, on behalf of Bath & NE Somerset Supporting People Team.

2.  Introduction to Agency

Anchor Housing Association is a major national provider of ‘housing with support to older people’. St Clements Court and Fitzroy House services are established sheltered housing schemes.

2.1 Brief History

St Clements Court is located in Weston Village. It is a post war building with flats arranged over three floors and has parking available at the rear. The location is convenient for shops and services in Weston High Street. The scheme has a day room for use by the residents and access to a guest flat is also available. This scheme does not prohibit residents from owning pets.

Fitzroy House occupies three conjoined large Georgian town houses in a prestigious location, and is a short level walk from Bath City Centre. The scheme has a generous communal lounge and has parking and secure access from the rear of the building.

Both sheltered housing schemes have a 50% nomination agreement with B&NES Council.

2.2 Capacity

2.3 Monitoring Information

Fitzroy House

St Clements Court

The monitoring returns represent a well managed service with regard to service availability, utilisation and staffing.

2.4 Existing Funding

Estimate at 70% of full occupancy in receipt of subsidy:

4. Legal / ODPM Guidance on group and type of service

There is no specific steer on sheltered housing from ODPM in relation to Supporting People.

The provider was found to have already established a system of needs assessment and support planning, co-ordinated nationally throughout all its schemes.

This was consistent with the recommendations made in EROSH: The emerging role of Sheltered Housing. The Supporting People Programme represents a major income stream for Anchor and preparations to meet the new requirements had been made well in advance of the review.

The validation submission was comprehensively completed centrally rather than by the scheme manager.

6. Consultation with Service Users and Scheme Managers

Residents at each scheme were invited to give feedback at coffee mornings. These were held in the scheme communal areas and were conducted without the scheme manager.

6.1 Consultation Findings

Awareness of Supporting People was low amongst residents, and many had difficulty in separating this from the Councils wider responsibilities and functions, and gave lengthy feedback about areas beyond the scope of this review, e.g. in relation to Homecare.

The review noted some tensions between residents; e.g. some residents at Fitzroy House found it difficult to believe that anyone living there was in receipt of Supporting People subsidy, but this is not unusual in Sheltered Housing where people on occasion come face to face with others from very different socio-economic backgrounds for the first time.

There were no unresolved complaints at time of review, or any further complaints raised through consultation. Both premises were well maintained in accordance with the needs of older people.

It was apparent at Fitzroy House that not all residents were clear about the process for gaining adaptations or aids to their sheltered flat, but the Scheme Manager was fully aware of the process. Some people appeared to indicate costs as prohibitive for adaptations.

7. Evidence and Risk Assessment

The review found both services to be meeting the QAF at Level C across all objectives, with generally high levels of service user satisfaction, and effective long serving scheme managers. The review identified no risk in contract renewal for either scheme.

The review did note that there might be longer-term risks associated with Great Pultney Street. Whilst Anchor have not formally indicated any intention of disposal of this site, the capital value of such a property cannot be ignored, as it is located in the heart of Baths prime residential location.

There were no identified risks to service users at either scheme. There were clear divisions of opinion between some groups of residents, and at St Clements Court the scheme manager had made considerable efforts to integrate one resident who had come from a markedly different background to many sheltered tenants.

Similarly, one resident at Fitzroy House had been supported by the scheme manager in the face of some initial fear and hostility from other residents.

8. Value for Money

Fitzroy House

Cost per unit (to Supporting People) per week:        £3.93

Regional Lower Quartile:                                                     £4.84                         

Regional Upper Quartile:                                                     £17.72                                               

(Drawn from 1527 Comparable services regionally)           

National Lower Quartile:                                                       £5.03                         

National Upper Quartile:                                                       £16.65                       

(Drawn from 13,590 Comparable Services Nationally)

** Please note that all these comparators are drawn from Pre-Review Contract Prices, and are likely to be higher than Post Review contracts)                                   

St Clements Court

Cost per unit (to Supporting People) per week £6.95

Regional Lower Quartile:                                         £4.84                                    

Regional Upper Quartile:                                         £17.72

(Drawn from 1527Comparable services regionally)

National Lower Quartile:                                           £5.03             

National Upper Quartile:                                           £16.65           

(Drawn from 13,590 Comparable Services Nationally)

** Please note that all these comparators are drawn from Pre-Review Contract Prices, and are likely to be higher than Post Review contracts)                       

There are no concerns over the unit price. The review noted that staffing is the same level at both properties, and this creates a lower service level at Fitzroy House due to the difference in capacity.

9. Review Outcome / Recommendations and Impact

1.                  The contracts for both St Clements Court and Fitzroy House are recommended for renewal at current contract levels, subject to the provider’s assurance of the future of the latter scheme. The schemes were found to be well run.

2.                  Anchor should evidence the service at a Level B across all core objectives during 2005 and submit evidence for level B when presenting the annual self assessment documentation to the Supporting People team.

3.                  The outcomes of the review must be shared with service users.

4.                  The review recommends that Anchor Trust look at the staffing disparity for the two schemes with St Clements Court having the same number of staffing hours as Fitzroy House with half the number of units.